|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:46 am
[[CyBeR-PuNk]] okay He says space and time are the same thing (sorta) I say If you freeze time, everything in space 'stops' there is no way you could freee time!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:51 am
[[CyBeR-PuNk]] okay He says space and time are the same thing (sorta) I say If you freeze time, everything in space 'stops' Would it really matter if you froze space or time? Could you theoretically freeze space, and thus freeze tiem BUT theres a question hold on, einstein said if you wre to go c then you would end up frozen compared to everyone else (go around the world at c and everyone else if 40 while you are the same That doesn't make sense or deos it? help me out to understand Einstein Anyways, I had that very same problem, as I know only know enough Physics to understand the sci-fi that I read. If I understand you right, you are saying that on one hand if a person could theoretically freeze all matter in the universe they would in essence freeze time. Then on the other hand, you are saying that if you move at the speed of light then time would also freeze. (I hope I am getting your explanation right or the following will make no sense). The answer to your question lies in the fact that though both of scenarios may seem different, they are actually both the same thing. Time, as Einstein put it, is relative. Meaning, time only exists to something as it relates to something else. So if the whole universe disappeared around you for a while then came back, you would have experienced a minute or so of time in between, but to the rest of the universe would have experienced no time and you would have seemed to aged a minute or so instantly. Now here's the real kick to the head. If you could move at the speed of light the universe would stop relative to you. Likewise, if you made the universe stop you would appear to be moving at the speed of light relative to the universe. Relativity shows that there is no difference between these two scenarios. You, in essence, were explaining the same thing twice. Told you it would be a kick to the head xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:07 pm
(Question. Please excuse me if you find this somewhat irrelevant - I got carried away with an edit.) Before I knew these details of Einstein's theory I had made an observation to my grandmother that time, like width, length and depth, (or width, width, and width hehe) is physical. The theory in my mind was that time is made up of frames as is a cartoon (but each encompassing three dimensions) and therefore cannot be infinately slow, as a molecule is the limit to the structure of a substance. One who runs the same distance slower uses up more timeframes for the same distance. Is it when one frame is isolated in forever-ness (running infinately fast), as a film frame that is otherwise in a rotating group stands still (absolutely still for a while... but not necessarily forever hehe), that we cross back to the third dimension?
PS: To each mind, the frames follow each other, you can say, without any elapsed time between - this time between frames is a time of non-existance and therefore the person travelling in a spaceship exists exactly for the amount of time his clock says and, at the same time, for exactly the same amount of time as indicated by a clock of his friend back at home (provided that when one clock is place next to the other, it doesn't 'lag.') The distance in 'time' between these frames is truly different, but since this distance has no relevence to the life/procession of movement in the molecules of the person's body, one who enters a black hole, for instance, doesn't feel more 'weird' or 'slow' than one happily circling the Earth. (However, when our protagonist returns, his friend will have already grown a beard. In this lies the paradox.) ...Is this frame concept sort of true? Instead of saying space and time are the same, can you say motion/speed and time are the same? Without motion, can there really be a fourth dimension?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:55 pm
Rhee (Question. Please excuse me if you find this somewhat irrelevant - I got carried away with an edit.) Before I knew these details of Einstein's theory I had made an observation to my grandmother that time, like width, length and depth, (or width, width, and width hehe) is physical. The theory in my mind was that time is made up of frames as is a cartoon (but each encompassing three dimensions) and therefore cannot be infinately slow, as a molecule is the limit to the structure of a substance. One who runs the same distance slower uses up more timeframes for the same distance. Is it when one frame is isolated in forever-ness (running infinately fast), as a film frame that is otherwise in a rotating group stands still ( absolutely still for a while... but not necessarily forever hehe), that we cross back to the third dimension? you can think of it as time frames, much like the panels in a comic, and as far as we know time is digital. In the sense that the smallest time interval we can talk about is 10^-43s or sqrt(Gh/c^5*2*(pie)), because no observable particle interactions happen at a shorter scale. And yes, just like in your analogy of a flipbook, there are less 'frames' (if you want to define them through particle which occur at specific intervals of 10^-43s) required to present a faster moving object. I was about to say you missed two things, when it occured to me your anaology may be better than I previously thought. If we think of you as an observer who is standing still in your reference frame, and we think of the person you are observing in your flipbook as a person who is moving (let's take the flipbook to represent spacetime). Your flipbook represents the precession of time and it goes at only one pace (that which we know time to progress in a stationary reference frame). To make a crude picture instead of having each page flip at 10^-43s let's have it flip every second. To observe someone who is running in your flipbook, every flip contains less detail than if the observer were to be standing still, that is motions are more segmented and you see less 'in-between' actions, so to say. Now imagine that the person in your flipbook has their own flipbook, that represents their own internal clock. If both of you were standin still with respect to each other's reference frames then both of your flipbooks would be synchronized, and say you might observe that their flipbook flips a page per second, like yours. However, once they start running, since there is less detail in your flipbook, you will miss one or two flips and it will appear to you as if the other person's flipbook is flipping at a slower rate than yours. Thus it will seem to you like their clock is running slower, which it indeed is. I sincerely hope that made sense. Rhee PS: To each mind, the frames follow each other, you can say, without any elapsed time between - this time between frames is a time of non-existance and therefore the person travelling in a spaceship exists exactly for the amount of time his clock says and, at the same time, for exactly the same amount of time as indicated by a clock of his friend back at home (provided that when one clock is place next to the other, it doesn't 'lag.') The distance in 'time' between these frames is truly different, but since this distance has no relevence to the life/procession of movement in the molecules of the person's body, one who enters a black hole, for instance, doesn't feel more 'weird' or 'slow' than one happily circling the Earth. (However, when our protagonist returns, his friend will have already grown a beard. In this lies the paradox.) ...Is this frame concept sort of true? Instead of saying space and time are the same, can you say motion/speed and time are the same? Without motion, can there really be a fourth dimension? In effect you've used the same explaination as the one I put forward using your own analogy. The problem with the understanding of this temporal difference is whether or not it 'seems' that way or whether or not it really 'is' that way. And the answer is, that which seems really is. The definition of velocity is displacement/time, thus you need a change in a spatial dimension to describe it, thus since you connect velocity to time you still connect displacement to time. Thus you've still not taken care of separating the three spatial dimensions to the temporal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:11 pm
To Rhee:
The best way to understand why time slows down for a faster traveller is to understand why light speed is the same in every reference frame from which we can deduct that time is as relative as velocity.
If we take light speed to be the same in every reference frame, then if you were travelling adjacent to a beam of light, no matter how fast you were going, the beam of light would still be going at c. This is unlike you running beside someone else, where if you are running at their speed they will appear still to you, thus velocity is perfectly linearly additive.
In the case where you will never catch up to a light beam, change in your own pace of time is required. This is because both you, who are moving very fast (say 10% of the speed of light) and someone who is standing still observes one light beam travelling at the same speed. For this to be possible (you can think of it this way) we look at v = d/t definition.
A light beam travels 3x10^8m/s, since this ratio (d/t) must always remain the same as your own velocity increases (let's say you're trying to overtake the light beam) you steadily increase your own ratio d/t. Let's say d1 is the displacement of the light and t1 is the time it takes the light to go over this displacement and d2 is your own displacement and t2 is the time it takes you to make the displacement. Respectively we can think of V1 and V2 as the velocity of light and yourself.
Now we MUST follow this rule (I shall show you later why this is the case):
V1-V2 = c
and since V1 is always d1/t1, then as your d2 increases to keep the ratio d2/t2 the same, t2 must decrease. Thus the rate at which your time progresses must decrease.
Now, the reason we must follow the equation above is actually from observation. Let's take a simple collision. Say we have two cars (A and B) running towards each other resp. at 80km/hr the other at 100km/hr, travelling in such a fashion as to collide. IF the velocity of light were additive, then depending on where the observer was standing the light would either have a greater velocity relative to the car (if you were standing behind it) or less (in front) which means that the light of one car would reach your eye at a different time from the light of the other car, in which case one observer would see the collision take place, while the other would see the two cars just grazing each other because with B seeming to have a different velocity would not take place in such a collision.
Since we know that when a collision occurs all observers have seen the collision occur, thus we know that the velocity of light cannot be linearly additive and it must be the same regardless of reference frame.
Thus having shown that the velocity of light is not linearly additive and conversely that this property dictates a difference in time if you travel in different reference frame, we know that it must be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:29 pm
poweroutage Rhee (Question. Please excuse me if you find this somewhat irrelevant - I got carried away with an edit.) Before I knew these details of Einstein's theory I had made an observation to my grandmother that time, like width, length and depth, (or width, width, and width hehe) is physical. The theory in my mind was that time is made up of frames as is a cartoon (but each encompassing three dimensions) and therefore cannot be infinately slow, as a molecule is the limit to the structure of a substance. One who runs the same distance slower uses up more timeframes for the same distance. Is it when one frame is isolated in forever-ness (running infinately fast), as a film frame that is otherwise in a rotating group stands still ( absolutely still for a while... but not necessarily forever hehe), that we cross back to the third dimension? you can think of it as time frames, much like the panels in a comic, and as far as we know time is digital. In the sense that the smallest time interval we can talk about is 10^-43s or sqrt(Gh/c^5*2*(pie)), because no observable particle interactions happen at a shorter scale. And yes, just like in your analogy of a flipbook, there are less 'frames' (if you want to define them through particle which occur at specific intervals of 10^-43s) required to present a faster moving object. I was about to say you missed two things, when it occured to me your anaology may be better than I previously thought. If we think of you as an observer who is standing still in your reference frame, and we think of the person you are observing in your flipbook as a person who is moving (let's take the flipbook to represent spacetime). Your flipbook represents the precession of time and it goes at only one pace (that which we know time to progress in a stationary reference frame). To make a crude picture instead of having each page flip at 10^-43s let's have it flip every second. To observe someone who is running in your flipbook, every flip contains less detail than if the observer were to be standing still, that is motions are more segmented and you see less 'in-between' actions, so to say. Now imagine that the person in your flipbook has their own flipbook, that represents their own internal clock. If both of you were standin still with respect to each other's reference frames then both of your flipbooks would be synchronized, and say you might observe that their flipbook flips a page per second, like yours. However, once they start running, since there is less detail in your flipbook, you will miss one or two flips and it will appear to you as if the other person's flipbook is flipping at a slower rate than yours. Thus it will seem to you like their clock is running slower, which it indeed is. I sincerely hope that made sense. Rhee PS: To each mind, the frames follow each other, you can say, without any elapsed time between - this time between frames is a time of non-existance and therefore the person travelling in a spaceship exists exactly for the amount of time his clock says and, at the same time, for exactly the same amount of time as indicated by a clock of his friend back at home (provided that when one clock is place next to the other, it doesn't 'lag.') The distance in 'time' between these frames is truly different, but since this distance has no relevence to the life/procession of movement in the molecules of the person's body, one who enters a black hole, for instance, doesn't feel more 'weird' or 'slow' than one happily circling the Earth. (However, when our protagonist returns, his friend will have already grown a beard. In this lies the paradox.) ...Is this frame concept sort of true? Instead of saying space and time are the same, can you say motion/speed and time are the same? Without motion, can there really be a fourth dimension? In effect you've used the same explaination as the one I put forward using your own analogy. The problem with the understanding of this temporal difference is whether or not it 'seems' that way or whether or not it really 'is' that way. And the answer is, that which seems really is. The definition of velocity is displacement/time, thus you need a change in a spatial dimension to describe it, thus since you connect velocity to time you still connect displacement to time. Thus you've still not taken care of separating the three spatial dimensions to the temporal. I think of time is a bent helix ladder like what DNA is. Each bent area represent a event or transaction in that time frame that took place, it keeps bending as it goes on. One can't go back to that place due to the curves, one can observer them from this stand point. Though for in order for this to happen objects must move. This is similar to what Issac Newton stated, relativity to his digram that has relativity unchanged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:48 am
A Lost Iguana AirisMagik And they shoot particles in those big magnetic tuuuubess... to smash into eachother to create the quarks that aren't normally found. That is, created mass, larger than the original. But quickly lost. You are being a little disingenuous. While is is true that you can create a particle with a higher mass than the incoming particles in the accelerator [LEP-II is a prime example because it was tuned to the Z resonance (9118.7 MeV) and was an electron-positron (0.511 MeV each) collider] you need the incoming energy to be high enough to create a particle of a particular mass. The particles are so energetic we can often neglect the mass when it comes to calculations: the Tevatron has beam energies of 980 GeV, the 0.938 GeV mass of the proton is tiny in comparison. I'll pretend I'll understand Z Resonance and whatnot. I understand what you're saying on... a lower level. =D I read things, but I don't have the math background to understand it completely. All I know is that they need the kinetic energy in order to create mass... which is why they use such particle accelerators and the likes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:24 pm
What I meant was that the machines were tuned to produce Z bosons which have a mass of around 91000 MeV but the masses of the particles used to produce them was only 0.511 MeV. Thus, the colliding electrons needed to have more than 91000 MeV of kinetic energy between them to create a stationary Z boson. If you wanted it to move you would need even more kinetic energy in the electrons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:12 pm
[[CyBeR-PuNk]] okay He says space and time are the same thing (sorta) I say If you freeze time, everything in space 'stops' Would it really matter if you froze space or time? Could you theoretically freeze space, and thus freeze tiem BUT theres a question hold on, einstein said if you wre to go c then you would end up frozen compared to everyone else (go around the world at c and everyone else if 40 while you are the same That doesn't make sense or deos it? help me out to understand Einstein I will right now explain to you your answer that you have been looking for. YOU CAN'T FREEZE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so there u go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:36 pm
The day they figure out how to freeze time, will be the day that they actually manage to get drop a temperature to absolute zero.
Well maybe not, but still
YOU CAN'T FREEZE TIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:06 am
I don't think it's possible to freeze time or space. Time could slow down for you if you were going near the speed of light, but you wouldn't be able to freeze all time or space. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:08 pm
Here is a rough estimate of how I see 'speed' induced time and length modification.
If you are in a spaceship zooming past the Earth at near c, the Earth would appear to be squished almost to pancake shape. Thus you pass through a distance in their point of view in less time per their point of view because of your speed, and less time in your point of view because of what appears to be a physically shorter distance. From Earth observer perspective, you are also flattened. Your own time seems normal to each of you during fly-by, yet you see different travel distances, and the other person's clocks appear slower. However, since they are the reference frame you are relatively accelerating from and back to, they observe YOU as having your time slowed down then sped back up to thiers. Length contraction translates to time contraction. It is an indirectly modified time, not directly. Therefore, time is related to distance over which a change occurs, be it internal or external. Hence, time really is distance derived, which means it truly is a property of space. In regards to a still observer versus a moving observer, it is truly the same both ways and the time dialation would be a change in only the one who undergoes acceleration out of and back into the measuring reference frame. We cannot reverse the roles due to the fact that the one undergoing acceleration to and back actaully experiences the acceleration effects (contraction) in his molecules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:50 pm
asylum didacticum Here is a rough estimate of how I see 'speed' induced time and length modification. If you are in a spaceship zooming past the Earth at near c, the Earth would appear to be squished almost to pancake shape. Thus you pass through a distance in their point of view in less time per their point of view because of your speed, and less time in your point of view because of what appears to be a physically shorter distance. From Earth observer perspective, you are also flattened. Your own time seems normal to each of you during fly-by, yet you see different travel distances, and the other person's clocks appear slower. However, since they are the reference frame you are relatively accelerating from and back to, they observe YOU as having your time slowed down then sped back up to thiers. Length contraction translates to time contraction. It is an indirectly modified time, not directly. Therefore, time is related to distance over which a change occurs, be it internal or external. Hence, time really is distance derived, which means it truly is a property of space. In regards to a still observer versus a moving observer, it is truly the same both ways and the time dialation would be a change in only the one who undergoes acceleration out of and back into the measuring reference frame. We cannot reverse the roles due to the fact that the one undergoing acceleration to and back actaully experiences the acceleration effects (contraction) in his molecules. It would be nice if SOMEONE responded so I know whether my input is of value to anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:59 pm
asylum didacticum asylum didacticum Here is a rough estimate of how I see 'speed' induced time and length modification. If you are in a spaceship zooming past the Earth at near c, the Earth would appear to be squished almost to pancake shape. Thus you pass through a distance in their point of view in less time per their point of view because of your speed, and less time in your point of view because of what appears to be a physically shorter distance. From Earth observer perspective, you are also flattened. Your own time seems normal to each of you during fly-by, yet you see different travel distances, and the other person's clocks appear slower. However, since they are the reference frame you are relatively accelerating from and back to, they observe YOU as having your time slowed down then sped back up to thiers. Length contraction translates to time contraction. It is an indirectly modified time, not directly. Therefore, time is related to distance over which a change occurs, be it internal or external. Hence, time really is distance derived, which means it truly is a property of space. In regards to a still observer versus a moving observer, it is truly the same both ways and the time dialation would be a change in only the one who undergoes acceleration out of and back into the measuring reference frame. We cannot reverse the roles due to the fact that the one undergoing acceleration to and back actaully experiences the acceleration effects (contraction) in his molecules. It would be nice if SOMEONE responded so I know whether my input is of value to anyone. Time dilation is a direct effect of velocity, as there are processes that don't have to do with space that are observably time dilated. The most prominent of those is particle decay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:33 am
Layra-chan asylum didacticum asylum didacticum Here is a rough estimate of how I see 'speed' induced time and length modification. If you are in a spaceship zooming past the Earth at near c, the Earth would appear to be squished almost to pancake shape. Thus you pass through a distance in their point of view in less time per their point of view because of your speed, and less time in your point of view because of what appears to be a physically shorter distance. From Earth observer perspective, you are also flattened. Your own time seems normal to each of you during fly-by, yet you see different travel distances, and the other person's clocks appear slower. However, since they are the reference frame you are relatively accelerating from and back to, they observe YOU as having your time slowed down then sped back up to thiers. Length contraction translates to time contraction. It is an indirectly modified time, not directly. Therefore, time is related to distance over which a change occurs, be it internal or external. Hence, time really is distance derived, which means it truly is a property of space. In regards to a still observer versus a moving observer, it is truly the same both ways and the time dialation would be a change in only the one who undergoes acceleration out of and back into the measuring reference frame. We cannot reverse the roles due to the fact that the one undergoing acceleration to and back actaully experiences the acceleration effects (contraction) in his molecules. It would be nice if SOMEONE responded so I know whether my input is of value to anyone. Time dilation is a direct effect of velocity, as there are processes that don't have to do with space that are observably time dilated. The most prominent of those is particle decay. And are the particle's oscillations not the accelerations of which I speak? My feel for it is that longitudinal speed slows the spin of particles in that which accelerates, from an outside 'still' observer's standpoint. Am I seeing this correctly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
